FACULTY SENATE
FULL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2009
The second
regular meeting of the 2009-2010
Agenda Item I. Call to Order
Marianna Walker, Chair of the Faculty called the meeting to
order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes
Professor
Estep (Academic Library Services) offered a revision to Dean Boyer’s remarks
about the library budget. The minutes of September
15, 2009, were then approved as amended.
Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
Senators absent were: Professors Jenks (History), Schenarts
(Medicine), Jenkins (Social Work), Van Willigen (Sociology), Coddington
(Technology and Computer Sciences) and Niswander (Academic Deans’ Representative).
Alternates present were: Professors Aarps for Mathews
(Anthropology), Lamb for Reyes (Biology), Schmidt for Jeffs (Education), Henze
for Deena (English), Boklage for Willson (Medicine), Rentschler for Peery
(Nursing), and Kenney for Shinpaugh (Physics).
B. Announcements
The Chancellor has
approved the following resolution from the January 27, 2009,
09-06 Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix A. Faculty Constitution, Section VII.
Method of Election of the
We have openings on
the following University Committees and ask anyone interested in serving on
these committees to please contact Marianna Walker, Chair of the Faculty, at walkerm@ecu.edu.
Brief committee
descriptions are available online at:
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/committee/briefdescriptionsallcmtes.htm
o
Biological Safety Committee, 1 year term as Chair
of the Faculty representative
o
Calendar Committee, 1 year term as
o
Continuing and Career Education Committee, 1 year
as Chair of the Faculty representative
o
Faculty Information Technology Review Committee, 1
year term as
o
Family Weekend Committee, 1 year term as Chair of
the Faculty representative
o
Infection Control Committee, 1 year term as Chair
of the Faculty representative
o
Radiation Safety (Basic Science) Committee, 1 year term
as Chair of the Faculty rep.
o
Resident Status Appeals Committee, 1 year term as
Chair of the Faculty representative
o
Student Scholarships, Fellowships, and Financial
Aid Committee, 1 year full committee term
o
Teaching Grants Committee, 1 year term as Chair of
the Faculty representative
o
University Curriculum Committee, 1 year term as
Faculty are reminded
that most of the speeches given by the Chair of the Faculty are posted online
at: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/speeches/Speeches.cfm.
The Committee on
Committees is seeking nominees from the faculty for the election of one delegate and two alternates to the 2010-2011
UNC Faculty Assembly. Nominees should be full-time faculty,
holding no administrative duties outside his/her department. The
names of those nominated to the Committee on Committees will be submitted to
the
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/rosters/facultyassembly.htm
C. Steve
Ballard, Chancellor
Chancellor Ballard began his remarks by discussing the
policy manual which will be a repository of policies, procedures, rules, and
guidelines by which ECU operates. Board of Trustees felt that the way that the
University was doing business was too hazardous, chaotic , not systematic,
haphazard and frequently in violation of various types of requirements. This
put the University under unnecessary risk as an institution. Risk management
has become one of the leading concerns of many Universities. Therefore, it was
determined that the best practices of the University needed improvement, and
ECU has been working for the last twenty three months trying to get the
appropriate procedures in place. The Chancellor said that he felt very good
about the progress to date. The committee that has been working on these
changes has worked hard in trying to establish the appropriate procedures.
Recently several revisions were included in the approach to the University
Policy Manual which included:
Section 3.1
adds important language about effective faculty participation
Section 3.3 mentions
five specific areas where the faculty have a particularly important part to
play in the procedures of the University. These include topics such as
curriculum, tenure and promotion, and other areas where faculty input is vital.
Section 3.5 added
important language about procedures for adopting change that reinforces the
concept of shared governance.
The Chancellor stated that he supported all these revisions
and both the Faculty Manual Steering Committee and the Executive Council had
approved of these revisions as well. All of these efforts should make the Board
of Trustees and the auditor feel more confident in the way that the University
is operating.
The next topic that the Chancellor discussed was retention
and graduation, Three years ago the UNC General Administration set retention
and graduation goals identified for each institution. Goals were set related
for first year retention and for 4 and 6 year graduation rates. Last month the
UNC Board of Governors tied to enrollment growth funding. This and other forms
of revenue, for , which ECU would otherwise been eligible automatically ,may be
reduced. Using student retention rates as an indicator does not take into
account the profile of the students accepted at ECU. This University’s students
are more at risk of not continuing from their Freshman year to their Sophomore
year and not graduating on time. Last year, the first year retention rate
was78.7% this year and the goal for this University was 79%. The Chancellor
reported that he will find out this week if this outcome was close enough to
ensure the normal funding commitments like enrollment growth funding. Because
of this question about funding and because of the Strategic Plan and the
commitment of this University to the success of its students a University wide
University Retention and Graduation Task Force will been formed to discuss the
topic of retention in detail. This task force will examine admittance criteria
because this can make a terrific difference in the percentages of students who
come back as Sophomores and who eventually graduate on time. Another variable
is what happens in the classroom and whether the student feels that they are a
part of an academic unit. The student’s ability to declare a major and to get
sufficient tutoring and mentoring to succeed in their area of interest is a big
issue in retention. Another variable is where the students live. The task force
will be examining all these issue and focusing on the areas where the
University has a big sphere of influence and can control the outcome.
Another major University focus relating to retention and
graduation is an
The Chancellor also mentioned that COAD 1000 was improving
first year retention rates. Efforts will be made to expanding participation in
this program since only a third of the freshman class take this course.
The final topic that the Chancellor reported on was the
Bioscience building replacing the Howell building. This is the single most
important construction priority on the East Campus. The cost would be about
$125 million. The Chancellor indicated that he would appreciate
The Chancellor concluded his remarks by saying that for the
first time in a year he had no budget update. There has been no change in the
budget figures for a month and for the first time in fifteen months. The budget
information presented in the recent Budget Forum was the best information
available at this time The Chancellor indicated his appreciation to Professor
Gavin, as chair of this task force in providing structure to this discussion,
and said that he welcomed questions.
Professor Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) mentioned
an article in the Daily Reflector
stating that on campus housing was the best predictor of freshman retention.
She asked about mandatory on campus housing for freshman and how that had
worked at other institutions as the predictor for better retention. She asked
if there was a serious consideration for creating more on campus freshman
housing. Chancellor responded by saying that ECU needs the beds required for
this to happen and that there were currently not enough beds available due to
dormitory space being renovated. He stated that he understood the difference
between retention based on campus housing and that off campus housing has a
tremendous negative impact on grades and retention rates. He also indicated that the housing master
plan took this into consideration and that he had asked for approval from the
Board of Trustees for more on campus housing.
Professor
Zoller (Art and Design) stated that ECU had come so close to the retention goal
and wondered how the other institutions within the University system had
done. Chancellor Ballard said that
comparison data between institutions, but that he would ask Austin Bunch to
forward that information to the
Professor Rigsby (Geology) first
thanked the Chancellor for his remarks on the policy on policies particularly
related to his support for the revisions to Sections 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5 ;
Professor Rigsby stated that that was a big step forward and asked when the
faculty as a whole would get to see the policy on policies that was approved
yesterday by the executive council.
Chancellor Ballard responded as soon as possible after the meeting. Link to new PRR Regulation
Professor Rigsby (Geology) stated, that within the Policy on
Policies document, it is clear that the
Professor
Boklage (Medicine) stated that in reference to the retention and enrollment
growth funding, it seems that the University gets punished if they make a
mistake in admitting a student that, after given a chance and can not make it,
we all get punished if the same student flunks out of school. Chancellor
Ballard agreed with his point that the University can not lose the integrity
required to deal with each student. He
also stated that there was a real danger when relying on only one
indicator. Currently, there are 29
indicators that General Administration looks at and that ECU does not want to
lose academic integrity by relying too much on one academic indicator.
Chair
Walker thanked Chancellor Ballard for his remarks and stated that the faculty
appreciated his efforts to preserve traditional faculty responsibilities and for
listening to and collaborating with the faculty leadership relative to
university policies and procedures,
specifically the Policy on Policies. She thanked him for advocating for the
faculty within the shared governance structure at
D. Deirdre
Mageean, Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies
Prior
to Vice Chancellor Mageean’s remarks Chair Walker noted that VC Mageean had
worked diligently to preserve money for faculty in start-up funds and research
development awards, despite the significant cuts in this division during the
last academic year. VC Mageean was able to provide over $1 million for 51
requests for start-up funds in the 08/09 year. In addition,
$3
million will be awarded to a group of 87 faculty for start-up funds for this
year, (which represents 3 different yearly cohorts). Chair
Vice Chancellor Mageean stated there was not enough funding
to print the third annual report for everyone but that the report was posted on
the University website. Link
to Annual Report of the Division of Research and Graduate Studies
She invited everyone to read the details of the report and
indicated that she would provide some highlights of what had been a tough year
due to the financial environment. She reported that some parts of her division
took a 20% cut during the past year. This was done in part to protect the
academic core and also because of a very strange set of circumstances at the
state level. VC Mageean stated that for some strange reason the legislature
ordered a cut of over $1million in funding for centers which means that ECU
lost funding for RENCI and for the Center for Security Studies.
The faculty are to be congratulated on their ability to hold
steady on the amount of research funding from the previous year of around $44
million. Approximately$4.3 million has
been approved in seed money and other start up funds for the next year. She
reported that payoffs are being seen in all the investments. Federal stimulus
money is being aggressively pursued since losses in funding are clearly being
seen at the state level. ECU is currently tracking $12 million NIHS funding
this year where we were only tracking $6 million last year. The
VC Mageean reported that the University is in a critical
point in terms of space. Funding is needed to finishing the top floor of
Science and Technology and
VC Mageean discussed the continued need for centers and
institutes. She reported that they assist in education of our students and
outreach to the community as well as research. She asked that the
Ten faculty members from
No questions were posed to Vice Chancellor Mageean at this
time.
E. Marianna
Walker, Chair of the Faculty
Professor Walker began by stating that in thinking about her
remarks for the October
She stated
that as the Senators were aware, the review and revision of the faculty manual
was underway, which began the implementation phase of this directive. The
Standing University Academic Committees have begun the review of specific
sections of the faculty manual as charged, with the first sections being
reviewed at this
The Faculty
Manual Steering Committee initially met last week on September 30. The charges
from the Chancellor, Chair of the Faculty and the Provost were reviewed, which
have been distributed to all the senators. Faculty leaders were selected for
the Faculty Advisory Group based on their expertise in understanding the
faculty manual, or for their extended or present service as a Chair on a
University Academic Committee. This
faculty group will assist the standing university academic committees in all
aspects, by sharing their expertise and providing guidance and resources needed
to complete the charge. She called
attention to the list of the membership of the Faculty Advisory Committee’s
charge provided at each of the Senator’s seats.
A matrix was distributed to all standing University Academic and
Appellate Committees in the organizational meetings, which provided an outline
and timeline for manual review. Based on this review and revisions, the
committee will provide recommendations to the
The
Steering Committee, Faculty Advisory Group, and the University Standing
Committees will be asked to look at other UNC faculty manuals in consideration
of best practices regarding language and form.
The
We must
return to the basics by thinking about word choices, agree on syntactical form
to represent or revise policy or procedures, and organize in a written
framework that is easily interpretable by all.
This manual must result in a document that increases understanding of
the faculty policies and procedures and must be clear in how it relates to
university policy and procedures. If the document is written in an
understandable way, there will be fewer problems in the interpretation and
process in the future.
Chair
Chair
Last week,
Chair Walker attended her first UNC Faculty Assembly meeting as Chair of the
Faculty. She noted that Professor Catherine Rigsby would present highlights of
this meeting later in the meeting. She had a lunch meeting with other Chairs of
the Faculty of the UNC system and participated in a committee meeting relating
to Faculty Governance and Faculty Development.
She left the faculty assembly feeling great about ECU’s system of shared
governance and about the history that has fostered this working relationship
over the past 44 years. During these
meetings, she found myself giving examples of how the faculty leadership
mentors from within the Senate, of how the Chair of the Faculty communicates
openly with the Chancellor, of the quality of our standing University
committees and how they work with the
She stated
that she believed
Professor
Jones (Allied Health Sciences) stated that she has reviewed the Review
of the ECU Faculty Manual matrix
and wondered if decisions relating to the sections noted “remove” were already
made or would the
F. Anthony Britt, Director of
Admissions
Mr. Britt stated that the Freshman
class was born in1991. There were 19,200 applicants as full time first year
freshmen this year and this is a 23% increase over the previous year. It is
expected that this number will increase in the future. ECU admitted over 11,000
applicants this year which is on par with the previous year. The University
Goal was to enroll 500 fewer students. The incoming freshmen was 3,963 this
year vs. 4,500 last fall based on the September 8th census date. As a profile of the incoming Freshman class
Mr. Britt stated: 18.8 % are from out of state. We are under a mandate to
reduce this number to 18%. 42% were male and were 58% female. 12 students home
schooled.
Link
to annual report on the 2009 Freshman Class and Home Schooled Admissions.
Professor Tovey (English) asked if admissions was planning
on using the same admissions standards as in the past and would Mr. Britt please
remind the Senators of what they were under a mandate to keep the number of out
of state students capped at 18% and not to increase the size of the Freshman
class. Mr. Britt noted that the
admission standards were tightening a bit and a tier model was being used for
out-of-state and in-state applicants next year. The goal will remain at 4,122
freshmen in 2010 with a minimum SAT threshold of
Professor
Zoller (Art and Design) understood that the University was trying to increase
international faculty and students and work to have ECU become more
international. She wondered if ECU was
actively pursuing international students.
Mr. Britt noted that he did not know and that the question should be
referred to the Office of International Affairs because he does not oversee
that aspect of admissions. He also
stated that increases in students from other nations would be counted within
the 18% out of state cap.
Profess Zeager
(Economics) stated that the SAT scores of the Freshman class were up this year
and asked if Mr. Britt would provide the Senators with that information. Mr. Britt responded that ECU had an improved
SAT of 25 points from 1026 (for Fall
2008 ) to 1051( in Fall 2009).
Professor
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) stated, that although his office didn’t
work with international admissions, wasn’t it right that the more international
students ECU has, the higher the out-of-state numbers go up. Mr. Britt responded yes but only 1% or 2 % of
out-of-state students count for international students.
Professor
McKinnon (Interior Design and Merchandising) asked if ECU was seeing more
students who may have attended a private school but who are attending a State
supported university due to the downturn in the economy. Mr. Britt responded that all
G. David Dosser,
Chair of the University Athletics Committee’s Academic Integrity Subcommittee
Professor Dosser provided several
reports for the Faculty Senators and links have been provided here:
·
2008-2009Academic
Rankings of Squads in Conference USA
·
Graduation
Success Rate (1998-2001)
Professor David Dosser - - reported that this was his
seventh report and that his salary was not paid for by Athletics but through
Academic Affairs. He went over the academic integrity report that was before
each Senator at their seat. Professor
Dosser began his remarks by asking that the faculty take a more active role in
influencing what goes on in athletics in insuring institutional control and
academic integrity. He stated that academics and athletics needed to be fully
integrated. Most of the problems are in terms of retention and not in academic
performance. Professor Dosser went over the details of the report; it is
important to note that this report concentrated on the Olympic sports and does
not include football and basketball statistics. He reported that many of the
comments made by the Chancellor in today’s Senate meeting applied to athletics.
Overall ECU did not do as well this year as last year with a 2.9 overall
average ; ECU was previously 5 out of 12 in the conference last year and 7 out
of 12 academic ranking this year .Thus, while the GPA went up slightly ECU’s ranking in the
conference went down.
Professor Dosser reported three concerns:
1) We need to continue to do a better
job to screen the Chancellor’s special talent wavers. New policies have been
implemented this year; however, more faculty input is needed and more data is
needed as well. Admission decisions need to be on how likely a student athlete
will be in graduating from ECU and not on how good an athlete they might be.
ECU should not accept athletes who
do not want to be students no matter how good at their sport which he stated
was his opinion.
2) Best predictor of academic success
and graduation is whether the student identifies primarily as an athlete or as
student. This fact is the conclusion of research from the NCAA. Professor
Dosser suggested that ECU do a better job in getting faculty members connected
to the athletes as soon as possible. He suggested the University consider a
faculty mentoring program. Athletes spend a great deal of time with their
coaches and the athletic support staff but the emphasis should be on the
development of the whole person is important.
3) There is no evidence of systemic
academic integrity problems. Students athletes should be treated like any other
student. No one monitors what individual faculty members do. All of us are
responsible for the academic integrity of the student athletes here at ECU.
ECU struggles with the same issues as other Division 1 schools and does better
in most respects than most other Universities in Professor Dosser’s opinion.
Professor
Kenney (Physics) Thanked Professor Dosser for the quantitative report and asked
if there were any grade inflation since the cumulative GPA average shown for
athletes is higher than the general GPA for the University. Professor Kenny
suggested that data should be distributed that showed how do other Universities
GPA averages compare between these two groups Professor Dosser said he would
explore this and provide the information to the Senators.
Professor
Roberts (Philosophy) asked, in reference to the information stating that 47% of
the student athletes have earned “ECU Academic Honors”, what did this
mean. Professor Dosser responded that
the Academic Honors included the Chancellor’s list, Dean’s list, etc. with all
of them combined and referenced in the report. He stated that almost half of
the athletes made 3.0 average or higher.
Professor
Vail-Smith (Health and Human Performance) asked about the number of special
talent waivers for student athletes.
Professor Dosser did not have that information readily available but
promised to forward that information to the Faculty Officers for distribution.
Professor
Wacker (Music) asked about the statistics and was there a reason why the
football and basketball student athletes were not included on the list. Professor Dosser stated that generally
speaking the women student athletes do much better and the student athletes
involved Olympic sports do better academically than athletes in revenue
generating sports.
Professor
Gabbard (Education) stated that he had spoken to several student athletes and
was told that in order to increase the GPA student athletes were being pushed
into academic fields that the athletic leaders thought would work easy for them
instead of ones they liked. Professor
Dosser responded that he appreciated Professor Gabbard’s remarks and that it
was very difficult with the progress toward degree requirements for student
athletes to change their majors without the threat of losing athletic
eligibility. He noted that was why more faculty mentors were needed to help the
students make better selections.
Professor
Rigsby (Geology) asked if ECU was going to be held accountable for graduation
retention rates, but the GPA rates of the student athletes involved in the
revenue-generating sports were not as good, how would the academic performance
rates of those athlete affect the overall university records? Professor Dosser stated that the academic performance
of the football and basketball teams
were slowly and steadily rising thanks to continued emphasis on academics and
noted that ECU’s graduation rates for student athletes were comparable to other
institutions.
Professor
Tovey (English) asked if the academic performance rate that athletics goes
through a situation that is specific only to athletics. Professor Dosser responded yes, even with
men’s basketball, the rate has been more to do with transfer students than
academic difficulties.
Each
athlete has a retention point and an eligibility point and some of the football
players win academic awards.
Professor
Rigsby (Geology) stated that she appreciated all of the data collection and
Professor Dosser’s devotion to the academic issues among student athletes. She asked if, in the future, data could be
provided that would allow the
G. Terry
Holland, Director of Athletics
Director Holland first complimented Professor David Dosser
on his dedication to academic mattes and his oversight of athletes in relation
to academics. He stated that Professor
Dossier does not accept free trips and is not seen as part of the Athletic
Department. He keeps the Athletic Department at arms length and fulfills his
oversight role. Several years ago Professor Dosser changed the coaches to put
as much emphasis on winning the grade point championship as on winning the
athletic championships. We now reward each of our coaches who win a GPA
championship a month’s salary bonus.
Mixed messages are sent to the student athletes, when games are
scheduled that take them out of class, out of exams and even when championship
games are scheduled during graduation exercises.
Mr. Holland reported a great deal of improvement in progress
towards graduation that of the 21 Seniors on football team 7 have graduated and
are now graduate students and 9 will graduate in December. Thus it is certain
that 16 out of 21 Seniors on the football team will graduate within the four
year period. There are some bright spots, but Mr. Holland asked for the
faculty’s help in eliminating mixed messages to the student athletes. Some of
the best students transfer to better sports programs; retention is an issue
because the program can be penalized scholarships. If the retention rate drops
below a. 60% rate can it cost scholarship money. ECU needs to keep doing what
is right rather than what external dynamics make us feel we must do to protect
the University. Mr. Holland invited the Faculty Senators to communicate at any
time with the Athletics Department.
Mr. Holland ended his comments by addressing the question of
why add 7,000 seats to football stadium in these lean economic times. He reported that construction costs are down
20% and that there will be a short term job stimulus in this region and an
economic stimulus when an additional 7,000 fans come to a game and stay in a
hotel or eat in a local restaurant. Mr. Holland reported that the Athletics
Department projects that it has the ability to pay off the cost of construction
and offer continued discount on season tickets for Pirate Club members who are
suffering economically at this time; 35% of current ticket sales are sold at a
discount. He also reported that
construction would soon begin to build a new Olympic sports complex renovate
the tennis courts to make them more competitive. He reported that the
construction superintendent’s trailer and construction fence up for Olympic
sports is already in place. These facilities will greatly improve the quality
of women’s sports at ECU.
Chair
Professor
Jones (Allied Health Sciences) stated that student athletes were doing well in
classes due to the hard work of faculty within departments and schools and that
it bothered her to hear that athletic coaches got a month’s salary in bonus
when the student athletes exceeded the GPA standards. Mr. Holland stated that he understood her
feelings.
Professor
Sharer (English) asked if the scholarship formulas were designated just by
eligibility standards or remaining eligible and staying in school. Mr. Holland responded that student athletes
had to meet both eligibility standards and University standards in order to
remain in school. Mr. Holland underscored what Professor Dosser had mentioned
earlier about how complicate this all becomes when student athletes want to
change their major.
Professor
Gabbard (Education) stated that the College of Education has faculty spread all
over campus with some classrooms in poor shape and asked if the College could
borrow money from Athletics or would Mr. Holland provide advice on how to earn
money to improve the academic buildings and classrooms. Mr. Holland responded that he was sorry he
could not provide advice on this matter but that having the State fund academic
buildings and classrooms was a better situation than fund-raising for buildings
and improvements.
I. Robert J.
Morphet, Counselor, University Counseling Center and Mark Jones, Professor,
Department of Criminal Justice
Mr. Morphet stated that he headed the ECU’s Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug
(ATOD) task force which included
members from the ECU Dean of Students, Student Health Services, ECU Police,
Center for Counseling and Student Development, Office of Student Rights &
Responsibilities, Students Recreation & Wellness, Student Legal Services,
Campus Living, Greek Life, ECU Athletics, The First Year Center, Students Government
Association, and faculty of criminal justice, health education, and
rehabilitation studies. ATOD also engages in interactive presentations to
academic classes and residence halls; special trainings for resident
assistants, orientation assistants, student athletes, fraternities and
sororities; seasonal programs around Halloween and spring break; risk
management programs; and intervention and counseling programs. Mr. Morphet
provided an update on the activities of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs
(ATOD) Task Force including a Link
to power point presentation on recent College ALC Prevention Strategies Final
Report.
Mr. Morphet
stated that freshmen students were most at risk and that ALC activities
provided students with alcohol education.
Cost is $5.00 per student and the total cost was $23,000. Over 78% had already responded to the alcohol
safety academic success and retention survey funded by the Divisions of
Academic and Student Affairs and the State’s Alcohol, Bureau, and Fire Arms
Division. He stated that Fall 2008 was
the first year that freshmen students became a part of the project.
Professor Jones (Criminal Justice) stated that faculty
involvement really makes a difference for students and that the Task Force had
received inquiries from parents about what the University was doing about
alcohol and drug abuse within the community. Professor Jones reminded faculty
that telling “war stories” about alcohol induced activities should be
discouraged and that graduate teaching assistants should be reminded that
glamorizing the use of alcohol and/or drug use sent the wrong message.
Professor Jones (Criminal Justice)
noted that Bob Morphet and the ATOD were to be commended for their efforts
on this important topic and that the program was recognized in September 2009
as the “2009 Outstanding Program” by the Eastern North Carolina Council on
Substance Abuse. He noted that Chancellor Ballard had visited the task force
meetings, and was serious about prevention and intervention on campus. With the
Chancellor’s support, the ATOD was undertaking the monumental task of changing
the culture regarding alcohol and drug use at ECU.
Professor
Glascoff (Health and Human Performance) stated that the power point
presentation emphasized the importance of handling alcohol poisoning, etc.
quickly. She stated that she had not
gotten from the information the fact that freshmen students should just not
drink because they were all underage.
Specifically, why the message is not stated as “Don’t drink”. Professor Jones remarked that about 15% of
the students under the legal age of 21 class don’t engage in alcohol use; that
means that 85% of the students are drinking illegally. Also both faculty and
staff make efforts to attend as many student group meetings, etc. to reiterate
no underage drinking.
J. Catherine Rigsby, Faculty Assembly
Delegate
Professor Rigsby provided several reports for the Faculty Senators in reference
to the October 2, 2009, UNC Faculty Assembly Meeting and links have been provided below:
Professor
Rigsby stated that the highlights of the Faculty Assembly report related to President
Bowle’s budget report in which he stated that 900 positions had been abolished.
Six hundred of those positions were filled which means that 600 people lost
their job. He also reported that he expects more budget cuts this year but that
they will not impact the academic core. More vertical cuts were expected. The
four year tuition plan will be reviewed along with the enrollment growth
formula. A committee will be formed to look at distance education across the
state leading to a director of distance education for the state. The watch
words of nimble, efficient , and responsive were applied to the way that we
will do business in the future. ECU’s procurement system was pointed out as an
example of a program that was efficient and will be adopted by the system as
well as UNC-Ch Ramses system for contracts and grants. Faculty workload be
global effectiveness were mentioned as well as retreat rights for faculty who
leave administrative positions. Retention and graduation rates will be
important for distributing funding to the various universities. He defined
administrators in part. Other presentations were given by a GA lawyer on
employment based on funding availability. A safety briefing was included in the
day’s briefing. Senior Vice President Alan Mabe discussed faculty workload
study which he said is not a big issue with the legislature right now. Review
boards were discussed for evaluating new programs. Peer institution reviews
will also be held this year. The committees of the Faculty Assembly are also
named and their missions are included; please contact a Faculty Assembly
delegate or the Chair of Faculty for any issues you want discussed at the
system wide level.
No questions were posed to Professor Rigsby.
K. Question
Period
Professor
Givens (Foreign Languages and Literatures) stated that in relation to the work
of Provost Sheerer’s Task Force last year, keeping faculty at arms length from
the main issues relating to student retention may prevent the University from
maintaining retention rates and ensuring grading integrity. Provost Sheerer
stated that what the Retention Task Force developed would need to be vetted and
asked Professor Givens if he would like to be on task force. Provost Sheerer
agreed that the findings of the task force should definitely be forwarded to
one or more standing University academic committees for deliberation.
Professor
Rigsby (Geology) asked why were the standing University academic committees not
being used to address graduate and retention issues instead of continuing to
form Task Forces to address academic issues.
Provost Sheerer replied that she had tried to involve administrators
working in enrollment management and student affairs first in order to give
them an opportunity to lend a voice to these issues. She stated that she did not have any
resistance to using the standing University academic committees but that other
pieces needed to be pulled together.
Professor
Sharer (English) stated that as a member of the Admission and Retention
Policies Committee, she has just recently been asked to serve on the newly
formed Retention Task Force. She read on her computer that she had been
nominated while in the Senate meeting today.
Professor
Abdel-Rahman (Medicine) asked about the standardization of grants and contacts
within sponsored programs. VC Mageean
stated that she would try to get a clarification on this because a lot of this
was dictated by Federal rules and regulations and that she was unsure what the
standardizations meant. She agreed to
provide additional information to the Faculty Officers on the Ramses system for
distribution.
Professor
Kerbs (Criminal Justice) asked about the 133% funding cap and where was it in
relation to discussion among members of a standing University academic
committee. VC Horns responded that the 133% funding cap issue and that
Professor Brenda Killingsworth serves as a faculty representative on this
committee. An administrative EPA Personnel Policies Committee, chaired by Jim
Mullen in Human Resources also exists and that Professor Marianna Walker as
Chair of the Faculty, serves on this administrative committee representing
faculty concerns.
Agenda Item IV. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business to
come before the body at this time.
Agenda Item V. Report of Committees
A. Faculty Governance Committee, Puri
Professor Purification Martinez (Foreign Languages and Literatures),
Chair of the Committee, stated that since August 2009 she, along with various
members of the Faculty Governance Committee,
had been working on the final proposed revisions to Appendix D. She noted that she had received a phone call
that morning from the University Attorney, Donna Payne and was told that the
proposed revisions included in the Senate’s October meeting agenda were not yet
ready for final approval. Ms. Payne
stated that page 11 of the agenda did not address #8 of the General
Administration Letter, dated May 2009.
Professor Martinez noted that members of the committee had consulted
with both the University Attorney’s office by way of a representative in
attendance at all Faculty Governance Committee meetings and someone at General
Administration for additional information. However ,a reply was not
received. Therefore, in order to address
this concern, the Committee would meet soon to consider this and asked to have
this report removed from consideration today , so it would not be adopted
piecemeal, in hopes of introducing proposed
revisions addressing all these issues in the November
Professor
Rigsby (Geology) stated that this was incredibly disturbing and asked that
Chair Walker and Provost Sheerer meet to discuss this further. She noted that she wanted the Faculty
Senators, Chancellor, and University Attorney to understand how hard the
committees work on issues and that there were at least one University Attorney
present in these meeting. She also noted
that it had been 3 weeks since this issue was finalized within the Committee
and that the administration and University Attorney’s office needed to work at
the same rate that the committees were working in order to avoid butting heads.
Donna Payne, University Attorney stated that the point of
contention was one that General Administration had pointed out earlier as a
defect and involved the opportunity of a faculty member who has been denied
tenure but had not lost his or her job. She stated that the General
Administration Letter, dated May 2009 states that the faculty member would
have the opportunity to grieve that action as called for in Section 607c of the
UNC Code and through the Faculty Grievance Committee (Appendix
Y of current ECU Faculty Manual).
She stated that what was currently being proposed contradicted what General
Administration required and there was a specific direction returned to the
committee as denied. General Administration’s legal advisors indicated that the
faculty member has the right to grieve, especially regarding early tenure
decisions; General Administration’s opinion is that a faculty member’ s right
to greave.
Following
discussion, action on the proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix
D. Tenure and Promotion Policies and Procedures of ECU was postponed until
a future
B. Academic
Standards Committee, Linda Wolfe
Professor Linda Wolfe (Anthropology), Chair of the Committee first presented a
recommendation that
Dance 1000 be reinstated as a Foundation Curriculum course for the Arts. She noted that a typographical error had
occurred in the spring and that this course had been inadvertently left off the
list of courses with Foundation credit.
There was no discussion and the proposed reinstatement of Dance 1000 as
a Foundation Curriculum course for the Arts was approved as presented. RESOLUTION
#09-35
Professor
Brown (Psychology), a member of both the Academic Standards Committee and SOIS
Task Force (formed by IPAR) presented the Committee’s recommendation on the
Student Opinion of Instruction Survey (SOIS). The Academic Standards Committee
had made recommendations about the use of the SOIS last year which the
Chancellor declined to approve Since
that time a committee was appointed which met over the summer and examined the availability of commercially
available surveys. This committee determined that the commercially available
surveys were not significantly better than our SOIS instrument. A second
committee named SOIS 2, began to
consider how to modify what is currently used; this committee as well as the
first committee made recommendations to the Academic Standards Committee and these recommendations are now before the
Senators for consideration.
Professor
Brown indicated that there are three problem areas including:
1) Over reliance on the use of Item 19
as the indication of teaching effectiveness.
2) Use by some unit administrators to
use SOIS to rank order faculty in terms of teaching effectiveness in annual reviews.
This is particularly difficult to justify when the standard deviations are not
statistically significant.
3) Increasing the student response rate
for the online SOIS.
The current proposal is to use the current SOIS online
instrument with the removal of item 19. Secondly, the committee recommends that
Provost’s office ensure that department heads and other unit administrators are
trained on the use multiple means of evaluation of teaching effectiveness
including the SOIS data. David Weismiller sent out a very informational memo to
unit administrators on the topic of evaluating teaching effectiveness. Finally,
the committee recommends that IPAR, who are the evaluation specialists, to use
a number of methods to enhance the rate of student response. Professor Brown
ended his remarks with what he called an editorial comment relative to the
recommendations; this was to remove the word plasma in front of the word
television since not all televisions on the University camps are plasma screen
televisions.
Professor
Roberts (Philosophy) asked about the committee’s insight into recommendation #
1 that read: “Administer the current SOIS instrument without Item 19.” Professor Brown stated this was the item that
called the most contention. Item 19 is not an indicator of teaching
effectiveness since it has no psychometric value. Given that some unit
administrators line faculty up by the total score on the SOIS question 19; this
question can mask the scores that would be generated only using the better
question and that would be better overall evaluation.
Professor
Zoller (Art and Design) stated that in reference to the University Auditor’s
request Management
Letter-University Policies Procedures and Training and the noted “lack of training for
new supervisors and chairs of departments with regard to current University
policy and procedures”, it seems that all unit administrators should be trained
in different ways to evaluate faculty teaching.
Professor McKinnon (Interior Design and Merchandising)
stated that in reference to recommendation 3 that read: “IPAR utilize a variety
of methods to enhance the rate of student participation. This could include
simplifying access to the instrument, such as adding a direct link from
Blackboard courseware to the SOIS survey, utilizing campus TVs to increase
awareness of completing the survey, and other appropriate means of encouraging
students’ participation. He saw severe
psychometric difficulties and that in some courses his evaluations did not get
enough SOIS forms returned to be called data at all. If he were asked to
publish his record of teaching effectiveness he could not use many of the SOIS
scores as data because the return was so low it would not be considered
statistically significant. If the SOIS information could not be published as a
good statistical measurement then why are we discussing using it at all; why
are there two standards for what reliable statistical data? Professor Brown indicated that this
recommendation was an interim recommendation and there should not be an
overreliance on the SOIS as a indication of teaching effectiveness.
Professor
Zeager (Economics) stated that the unit personnel committees currently use a
document that recommends to the unit chair using the Item 19 answer. If Item 19 were eliminated, the unit’s
document would need to be changed, causing a hardship within the unit without
time to do something different before the Spring evaluations including
consideration of promotion and tenure. Professor Brown responded that Professor
Zeager had a good point and that he was not qualified to speak to the detail
related to the change over when Item 19 is eliminated
Professor
Sharer (English) stated that it was not a bad recommendation to get rid of
question Item19. She wondered when would
this be implemented because all units would need training on how to look at the
data collected from the SOIS materials and instead of only Item19 data. Professor Sharer expressed a logistical
concern with implementing this change right now in some of the larger academic
departments and suggested the change over be made in the fall of next year when
there was more planning time. She asked how did Professor Brown and the
Committee recommend handling the change.
Professor Brown responded that he understood that the change was
cumbersome but that more harm was being done by using Item 19 and that we just
need to change the academic departments procedures since nothing was to be
gained by continuing to do the same thing and use only evaluating faculty
members by the use of Item 19.
Professor
Howard (Communication) provided more overview of the SOIS task force and the
correlation that the SOIS only depicted the student’s opinion of instruction
and not the quality of the teaching conducted by the faculty member. Professor
Brown indicated that both SOIS Committees 1 and 2 recommended to Academic
Standards, that the current instrument be used without Item 19; and that the
Academic Standards committee agreed and sponsored the resolution before the
Senate now. That had been the vetting process up to now.
Professor
Kerbs (Criminal Justice) asked if there was a way to increase the response rate
by tying the completion of the SOIS with the student obtaining final grades
only after the survey was completed. Your final semester grades might be
accessed only upon completion of the survey or example. Professor Brown
responded that he felt that this should not be done since the survey needed to
continue to be voluntary, and he was concerned that whatever changes were made
to increase the response rate not victimize the faculty. He concluded that this
is a student issue so maybe the
Professor
Rigsby (Geology) stated that she wanted to speak in favor of the change in the
SOIS ECU should not penalize faculty and that changes to the way faculty are
evaluated would be improved by the removal of Item 19. She also stated that with any changes in
policies and procedures there are conflicts, but when General Administration
imposes changes faculty rise to the occasion and handle the changes admirably.
So this change in how we evaluate the quality of faculty teaching is much
needed.
Professor
Tovey (English) stated her support of what Professor Rigsby said and stated
that when she hears from students and faculty that they are only using question
Item19.
Professor
Schmidt (Education) stated that she had a problem with tossing out a question
just because people were misusing it.
Doesn’t question Item19 provide us with information and can students
identify good teaching? Professor Brown responded that there was a study
completed that asked the question: “ Do students understand good teaching ?
“and the answer was , “yes” , but that usually students do not like good
teaching because it is generally harder than average or poor teaching. So, taking away question Item19 will help
faculty because more items from the SOIS will be used in relation to providing
feedback on teaching quality. Professor Brown stated that there were really
only two questions being answered are: “ Is the professor nice and is the
course well organized ? ”. He concluded that we are all addicted to Item 19.
Professor
Jones (Allied Heath Sciences) asked if, from the comments of the group, was it
the opinion of the faculty that the administrators were not trainable to use
items on the SOIS other than question #19.
Professor Brown did not respond.
Professor
Zoller (Art and Design) called the question and the Academic Standards
Committee’s recommendations on the Student Opinion of Instruction Survey (SOIS)
were approved as presented. RESOLUTION #09-36
C. Admissions and Retention Policies Committee
Professor
Joseph Thomas (Academic Library Services) and Professor Wendy Sharer (English),
both members of the Committee, presented the proposed revisions to the ECU
Faculty Manual, Part V. Section I.J. Grade Appeals. This recommendation was
based on a model currently in use at UNC Charlotte and AAUP guidelines. The
President of the SGA at the time ( who was a member of the Ad Hoc committee)
stated that this resolution had been worded ,by the committee , and that he did
not see a reason for a standing student member of the committee. Professor Thomas first noted a change in Item
5 of the appeals procedure (noted in red) so that it read:
“If step
4… This committee shall include four faculty members from the college: one selected by the instructor of
record, one by the student appealing the grade, two by the college dean, and
one faculty member from among the regular membership of the Student Academic Appellate
Committee. The Committee shall elect its own chair. …”
Professor
Brown (Psychology) moved to change the text under the appeals procedures #5 to
read as follows “This committee shall include three faculty members from the college:
one selected by the student, one selected by the instructor of record, and one
appointed by the college dean. A
majority shall prevail in the committee.” This amendment would reduce the
perceived bias that more faculty there would reduce the potential bias against
the student. The amendment was passed by a voice vote.
Brad Teasley
(Student Government Association (SGA) Vice President) thanked the Ad Hoc
committee for their work and stated that this year the student government would
like to see would be a student member on the grade appeals committee and
confirmed that the past SGA president did serve on the ad hoc committee that
worded the resolution being presented. He stated that this is an important
committee and that having a regular student member on the committee would
increase the fairness of the appeal process. Tremayne Smith (SGA Treasurer)
stated the addition of a student member would not usurp the professor’s ability
to assign grades but it would properly appeal a grade that had been assigned
through some form of malpractice. The addition of a student member would also
make the students feel as if they had some sort of a voice in the grade appeals
process. In K thru 12 education teacher are called teachers because they teach
us, but somehow when a student reaches college the teacher is called a
professor. He stated that he believed that this was because most college
professors profess what they know. In professing, he stated, the faculty should
not forget that students are more than just ears and that they are also voices
in their own education.
Professor
Gibson (Business) asked if the Committee was asking to add a student member
since there was an amendment to decrease the membership from 4 to 3. She asked if the Committee wanted to ask that
the SGA president or designee designate the 4th member. Mr. Teasley indicated
that the student member should be the fifth member in their opinion.
Chair
The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Hunt McKinnon Lori
Lee
Secretary of the Faculty
Department of Interior Design and Merchandising
FACULTY SENATE
RESOLUTIONS APPROVED AT THE OCTOBER 6, 2009, MEETING
09-35 Reinstatement of Dance 1000 as a Foundation
Curriculum course for the Arts.
Disposition: Chancellor
09-36 Recommendation on the Student
Opinion of Instruction Survey (SOIS), as follows:
Any change in instrument or revision of the existing
student survey instrument will take time if it is to be done well. In the interim, the committee proposes that
the university continue with the current SOIS while the process is under review
but with the following recommendations:
1. Administer the current SOIS instrument
without item 19.
2. The
Provost’s Office should ensure that unit administrators receive training prior
to the annual evaluation of faculty in the use of multiple methods of
evaluating teaching effectiveness.
3. IPAR utilize
a variety of methods to enhance the rate of student participation. This could
include simplifying access to the instrument, such as adding a direct link from
Blackboard courseware to the SOIS survey, utilizing campus TVs to increase
awareness of completing the survey, and other appropriate means of encouraging
students’ participation.
Disposition: Chancellor